Dark Knight Megathread

[Sazuzaki]

Either all the tanks should have this problem, or none of them should.

Archwizard did an excellent job at clarifying this.

I'm no stranger to knowing that TBN is holding the job back in other forms of being unique. Like, if I could exchange TBN for a unique mechanic like Dark Arts (before Eukrasia), I'd do it. However, can we really expect them to change the other aspects about DRK's job identity and not *just* homogenize the only thing that sets DRK's defensive kit apart?

I'm still aboard for this job to get a proper rework, but I'm not on board with this job getting mechanics removed and having nothing replace them.

[RyuDragnier]

Archwizard did an excellent job at clarifying this.

I'm no stranger to knowing that TBN is holding the job back in other forms of being unique. Like, if I could exchange TBN for a unique mechanic like Dark Arts (before Eukrasia), I'd do it. However, can we really expect them to change the other aspects about DRK's job identity and not *just* homogenize the only thing that sets DRK's defensive kit apart?

I'm still aboard for this job to get a proper rework, but I'm not on board with this job getting mechanics removed and having nothing replace them.

Archwizard actually narrowed down my main issue with how TBN is right now. Personally if I had my way DRG and AST wouldn't be getting the reworks in 7.0, it'd be DRK and SCH. Both are punished heavily by their own job mechanics compared to others in their roles, both are clunky for this same reason, both are the unloved children of the devs in their roles...and both of them are what I main in their respective roles.

[Sazuzaki]

Archwizard actually narrowed down my main issue with how TBN is right now. Personally if I had my way DRG and AST wouldn't be getting the reworks in 7.0, it'd be DRK and SCH. Both are punished heavily by their own job mechanics compared to others in their roles, both are clunky for this same reason, both are the unloved children of the devs in their roles...and both of them are what I main in their respective roles.

For sure, and I've been wondering why they would bother reworking DRG and AST. Both not only perform really well, but are also really fun to play to a lot of people. The only complaints I've seen about the two are DRG's animation locks and AST's RNG. Other than that, they really don't need fundamental reworks.

DRK and SCH are both slowly getting outdated by FFXIV's current design philosophy.

[Crater]

No, it needs to be like the others in cooldown. DRK should not be the only tank punished for mistiming a cooldown via DPS loss. Either all the tanks should have this problem, or none of them should.

This makes about as much sense as saying "either all tanks should be able to equip a greatsword, or none of them should."

[Archwizard]

This makes about as much sense as saying "either all tanks should be able to equip a greatsword, or none of them should."

I don't think that's a fair comparison, considering you're equating something that's essentially a cosmetic decision to a tangible element of the gameplay.

The term here is "risk-reward factor". DRK is the only one that puts a risk on its mitigation, because it has to ante the cost of an attack. However, its "reward" is simply that you get the best of both worlds and the damage loss is net neutral (buff timings aside) if you use it successfully.
Or at least, that's the intent.
Of course, "you don't lose damage" is a pretty lousy reward for the risk posed, especially when such a cost isn't required of any other tank to get the same mileage (two of them even having completely free versions and one having it on its own resource), hence the mindset that you're really being penalized if you didn't get the full value out of the barrier.

There is simply no other tank forced to take a similar risk, even its own "interpretation" of such; it is a limitation that is only levied on the shoulders of DRK. If more tanks did, we'd just consider it endemic to the role or part of the tanking design philosophy. Right now though, DRK is an aberration, which is seemingly unfair.

[fourteenroads]

I've seen a lot of people saying TBN should be free/punish free. Please, for the love of god, don't change TBN.

DRK is the only tank that has it's defensive kit directly tied to it's offensive kit, and I think that's super cool. Everyone's saying how that's a bad thing, and while I can see where they're coming from, removing the cost only homogenizes it more. Yes it could use improvement, but it's super fun to do wacky stuff with it and incentivizes you to get better if it fails.

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE MANA COST FOR THE BLACKEST NIGHT.

Edit: I've been hearing this from outside the forums, but I still wanted to throw my opinion on here just in case

You don't need to have mana cost to have defensive and offensive parts of the kit tied together. If feels awful when you use TBN and you get some value out of it but it doesn't break - so no damage for you. In high-end-duty that's not really a problem since pretty much everything breaks TBN, but in normal content it's quite difficult to break it. I feel like right now DRK feels bad and if they made TBN free it would still feel bad becasue it would basically make mana menagment not a thing lol. I don't really know how to fix it but both of those sound horrible to me lol. DKR needs overall rework imo 'cause right now it's just weirder clone of Warrior.

[Sazuzaki]

I feel like right now DRK feels bad and if they made TBN free it would still feel bad becasue it would basically make mana menagment not a thing lol. I don't really know how to fix it but both of those sound horrible to me lol. DKR needs overall rework imo 'cause right now it's just weirder clone of Warrior.

Agreed on both, I can really see why some people might hate it with the current tank meta. A rework would do DRK wonders, but we've all seen the SMN rework by now...

For MP management, they'd need to involve it with the DPS rotation and keep it the hell away from the defensives. Blah blah 3.0 DRK.. but it would be really good if we got a simplified 3.0 DRK rotation with Souleater and Old Delirium. Of course, I'd want them to try to be a bit more original, but that looks like the best possible outcome if we don't go the SMN route.

[Derio]

Why does Living Shadow still use AD? I know it was buffed but it is just as useless as Quietus was. No adjustments to oblation. Guess we will have to wait until savage dungeons to see how the meta unfolds how unbalanced defensively the tanks are.

[Runeslayer]

What if TBN when broken before the timer ends granted a free shadowbringer on a gain? And if it doesn't break before the timer end it instead gives you flood/edge to break even?

[Archwizard]

What if TBN when broken before the timer ends granted a free shadowbringer on a gain?

Which brings us to the other facet: the reason TBN's counterattack can only ever be DPS neutral. If proper use of TBN becomes a DPS gain, we encounter three issues.

One, that the value of using MP-consuming skills other than TBN diminishes; there is a calculable damage value of TBN over Flood/Edge, shifting the damage loss onto them instead. Unless you are likely to overcap your MP otherwise, getting the maximum damage value out of your MP requires using TBN.
Two, that you'll be weighing the use of TBN on the damage gain over the situations in which you require the practical defense; TBN becomes a damage tool, just one that happens to be procced by taking damage. (And good luck ever figuring out how much damage you have in Stone, Sky, Sea without the ability to break TBN to maximize damage.)
And three, the myth of "free damage": a job is balanced around consistently achieving its maximum damage potential. We would still consider getting the consolation a damage loss because it's not Shadowbringer, because our damage output would be balanced around pumping out Shadowbringers rather than Flood/Edge.

Not to mention that if you get a consolation Flood/Edge out of it either way, why bother giving TBN a cost shared with them at all?